Who has the right of way?

[John Baker]

A little over a year ago, while flying with my instructor, I had another first experience and lesson. I was on a west heading inbound to Oceanside Airport. A Cessna was coming up on me from the south on a very likely collision course.

My instructor asked if I had seen any traffic yet, which was the clue for me to start looking in earnest. I say yes, he asks me, "who has the right of way?" I tell him that I have the right of way. I get a "good" out of him.

So I hold my heading and so does the Cessna, finally my instructor takes the control and goes into a small dive, with the somewhat heated comment that "someone has to do something!"

He then goes on to point out that what he had just done was very dangerous in that the other pilot could have done the exact same thing at that exact same time.

After landing, it occurred to me that rather than flying the airplane, I had allowed myself to become a witness to the unfolding events. I just sat there watching the other airplane rather than thinking about an escape, like I was watching a movie.

I'm wondering if any of y'all has ever had that happen to them, and also if you have ever had to do evasive maneuvering to avoid a mid-air?

John

 

[jesse]

It gets tricky--right-of-way FAR stuff has one purpose and that is to determine fault in the NTSB report after you're both dead. Spotting another airplane in the sky is often a one-way deal and if you spot them, get the hell away, don't count on them to do it.

I'd have to see the situation, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop me from getting an inch closer. If the aircraft were close I would be very aggressive in the collision avoidance maneuver and I would put the airplane in whatever attitude could keep me safe. I'm going to do everything I can to stop the lateral distance from closing while increasing the vertical distance (up or down), a turn-around in the vertical may be an effective way of accomplishing that depending on the angles of the colliding aircraft.

Basically, do whatever the hell it takes to keep you as far away from the other airplane as possible. The more separation you can provide, laterally and vertically, the better, if you can do this in a direction the other aircraft couldn't possible maneuver to--better yet. Try to maintain visual contact as much as you can. Do something. Collisions happen fast. Don't wait for the other aircraft to do something.

FYI--if it is a head-on--you're supposed to both turn to the right. That said, the other pilot might not see you, and he might just go to the left. This is why they invented TCAS.

 

[Skip Miller]

Remember, you never have the right of way unless the other guy grants it to you. If he doesn't see you and you both continue, you are both dead, it is just that you are dead right. Be prepared and have an evasive action plan. Don't wait too long!

-Skip

 

[Ken Ibold]

Once upon a time I was on right downwind to land at Boca Raton in my Mooney. A Malibu overtook me on downwind, coming within 50 feet of me horizontally, turned a short base and landed ahead of me. When my pax called out the traffic on her side of the airplane, I peeled off to the left and rejoined the pattern. On landing the Malibu pilot acted as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened, like he didn't see me at all, which I found rather troubling on several levels.

Edit: This was before Boca's tower was built. I actually have had a number of issues at that airport and was glad to see the tower.

 

[Flyfishingpilot]

I learned that lesson during my training. I was heading back to the airport and spotted another Cessna slightly below me, to the left, about 600-800 yards in front of me. He was slightly climbing towards us. I decided to make a shallow dive to the right. The CFI said “my plane”, grabbed the controls and told me that he was going to maintain altitude but make a right 360 so that the other plane could see us. I told him “Are you @#$% crazy?? My plane” and grabbed the controls and did my shallow dive to the right while keeping an eye on how the other plane was reacting.
That day I learned firsthand that
1) A CFI is not always right (easy to assume when you just started out)
2) When avoiding another plane, try to keep an eyeball on what other guy while doing an evasive maneuver. Obviously may not be possible in dire situations, but in most instances, you can keep a visual on the other plane.
3) Don’t assume that the other pilot has seen you.
4) Better be wrong and alive than dead right
That was a great lesson that day….

 

[PittsDriver]

Edit: This was before Boca's tower was built. I actually have had a number of issues at that airport and was glad to see the tower.

Ken, I know you know this but I'll say it anyway - the tower has no responsibility to separate traffic in the air. You'll frequently hear a Class D tower tell several aircraft in rapid succession - "Report mid-field left downwind." Many tower operators will do their best but you should always assume that you're the only one looking out for your separation in Class D airspace.

I've always felt like the most likely place to have a mid-air was in the pattern at a Class D. I've had a couple of close calls myself. One of them was a Renton near Seattle were I found myself on a mile final, cleared to land, about 50' above another aircraft that had also been cleared to land.

I filed a report with the Atlanta TRACON back in April this year for a near mid-air. I was descending on an IFR clearance into the Atlanta airspace and came beak-to-beak with a Seneca, with two guys sitting the front seat, one wearing a red sweater (if you get my drift). If my active TCAD hadn't warned me early, we may have hit. I got the warning, looked up and immediately pulled up as they went under us by less than 100'. The interesting thing is that Atlanta denied that they had anyone in my area at all even though the incident happened as I was going through an IFR altitude.

My theory about that incident was that the other aircraft had a weak transponder that wasn't hearing or being heard by the TRACON. But, because my traffic system is an active one, I got a return from my own ping because it was powerful enough for his to hear it or I was close enough to hear his. If that's the case, then my hotsy-snotsy Ryan TCAD saved our lives that day.

 

[poadeleted20]

One of the most difficult things to do in a situation like that is to maintain course and altitude while waiting to see if the burdened aircraft maneuvers to clear you. Should you maneuver, you have just violated the rules on right of way, and if there is a collision after that, it's your fault. Even if there isn't a collision, the other pilot could lodge a complaint against you for making it harder to avoid you. OTOH, you'd have to be a total idiot to continue to the point of collision if the burdened plane doesn't move.

In that situation, my practice is to wait until I feel a) there is no time left to wait, and b) the other pilot just ain't gonna do what s/he's supposed to do. At that point, I will pull up over and into the other plane, since pulling into a plane with which I am currently on a collision course means I will go behind it, and by doing this sort of barrel roll maneuver, it is almost impossible for any maneuver the other plane makes to result in a new collision course. This will also keep the other aircraft in my field of view whether I'm flying a high-wing or low-wing aircraft.

And yes, I realize this maneuver may be very disconcerting to my passengers as well as violating a number of Part 91 flight rules -- see 91.3(b) for my response to that last part.

 

[jesse]

One of the most difficult things to do in a situation like that is to maintain course and altitude while waiting to see if the burdened aircraft maneuvers to clear you. Should you maneuver, you have just violated the rules on right of way, and if there is a collision after that, it's your fault. Even if there isn't a collision, the other pilot could lodge a complaint against you for making it harder to avoid you. OTOH, you'd have to be a total idiot to continue to the point of collision if the burdened plane doesn't move.

Can you point me to the FAR that states you are not allowed to maneuver if you have the legal right-of-way?

 

[KennyFlys]

Regardless of the rules, 91.113 or otherwise, you must keep your head on a swivel. Whatever action required for the safety of flight goes. If it gets turned back on you to defend, at least you're alive to defend it.

My two closest calls were right in the same area. The first was right after crossing the Navasota VOR (TNV) to the west before turning outbound to College Station. Another aircraft at our altitude from the south continued with no apparent clue we were there. My student was under the hood so I grabbed the controls and took us to an immediate bank to the right, continuing a 360 only to see the other plane never flinched. We were at 2,000 and had no radar coverage for about ten miles of flight. I notified center just in case they did see us make the turn.

The other was just yesterday at Brenham (11R). My student was making the approach and called base. Another aircraft called turning base. I asked for their position. No answer. I'm looking like crazy and so is my student. We turn final then the other plane calls final. I ask them again of their position. No answer. He finally appears on a very short final in front of us.

Fortunately, I had my student extend a bit (about one mile final) to consider the picture more with wind and an up-sloping runway. The other plane was a 152 which was most certainly overweight with two full-grown men (NOT small), Most likely, they had the radio turned down and they were certainly not looking or they didn't care. Add to that they pushed into such a short approach they weren't even trying to fly a normal pattern and look for other traffic. If that was their intention with know of other traffic, it was a blatant violation of 91.113 in order to get right of way. If that wasn't their intention, they were still acting stupid. I wanted to say something but didn't.

 

[poadeleted20]

Can you point me to the FAR that states you are not allowed to maneuver if you have the legal right-of-way?

It's not in the FAR's explicitly, but it is a fundamental basis of the concept of right-of-way, including the concepts of burden and privilege. Remember that aviation law has its roots in maritime law. The basic idea is that if one aircraft has the right of way over another, and the other aircraft is attempting to avoid the first as required, then any maneuver by the first could negate the burdened aircraft's maneuver. Thus, no manevering when you have right-of-way in a collision-course situation (unless you see no other way to avoid the collision, i.e., the burdened aircraft fails to take action and there's no time left for that aircraft to do so).

 

[Skip Miller]

Can you point me to the FAR that states you are not allowed to maneuver if you have the legal right-of-way?

It is probably determined by the legal system, not by the FARs.

In the marine world, the rules of the road are highly parallel to the r-o-w rules for aircraft. The rule that says "thou shalt maintain course and speed" is only operative when the situation is governed by the Piloting Rules, and the courts have decided (through a consensus of many lawsuits) that the Piloting rules are effective within a 3 to 5 mile distance, depending on lots of factors. Outside that distance, you are free to navigate at will. While the piloting rules are in effect, you will assume significant liability if you maneuver prior to being in extremis, which is the point at which the other guy is incapable of preventing a collision by his maneuvering alone.

So essentially, if you are the stand-on vessel, you must play chicken with the other vessel, unless you added/subtracted a few degrees or a few turns to your course/speed at 8 miles to avoid the collision.

It is bloody amazing how often two ships are on a collision course in the middle of the ocean. The "big ocean" theory doesn't work very well!

-Skip

 

[Ken Ibold]

Ken, I know you know this but I'll say it anyway - the tower has no responsibility to separate traffic in the air. You'll frequently hear a Class D tower tell several aircraft in rapid succession - "Report mid-field left downwind." Many tower operators will do their best but you should always assume that you're the only one looking out for your separation in Class D airspace.

Oh, absolutely agree. However, a tower does help tame the wildness of a busy uncontrolled airport. It was a particular problem in Boca because of the mix of jets and trainers, the runway being aligned as a crosswind runway, the complicated surrounding airspace, and the old farts. (Course, that was before I was an old fart.)

 

[jesse]

It's not in the FAR's explicitly, but it is a fundamental basis of the concept of right-of-way, including the concepts of burden and privilege. Remember that aviation law has its roots in maritime law. The basic idea is that if one aircraft has the right of way over another, and the other aircraft is attempting to avoid the first as required, then any maneuver by the first could negate the burdened aircraft's maneuver. Thus, no manevering when you have right-of-way in a collision-course situation (unless you see no other way to avoid the collision, i.e., the burdened aircraft fails to take action and there's no time left for that aircraft to do so).

Do you know of a single ruling or incident where the right-of-way aircraft was faulted for successfully avoiding a collision? Way I see it--no way in hell I'm going to give that other guy a chance. He probably doesn't even see me and if he does he might not even understand right-of-way. If I can maneuver in a direction that the other aircraft cannot possibly conflict with I'm going to do that as early as possible. I'm not going to wait until the last second to do some fighter pilot barrel role scare the **** out of my passengers maneuver.

Maritime right-of-way concepts apply somewhat in aviation. They had to start somewhere. It really isn't the same beast though.

 

[Pi1otguy]

So essentially, if you are the stand-on vessel, you must play chicken with the other vessel, unless you added/subtracted a few degrees or a few turns to your course/speed at 8 miles to avoid the collision.

It is bloody amazing how often two ships are on a collision course in the middle of the ocean. The "big ocean" theory doesn't work very well!

-Skip

Plus ships (subs excluded) work in just one plane. But the advent of GPS plus the gathering effects of VORs & airports seem to compress air traffic into artifical corridors.

 

[poadeleted20]

Do you know of a single ruling or incident where the right-of-way aircraft was faulted for successfully avoiding a collision?

Not offhand, but the fact is that the law reads as I described. Violate it at your own risk. How much risk there is if you successfully avoid the collision, I can't say.

 

[jmaynard]

In that situation, my practice is to wait until I feel a) there is no time left to wait, and b) the other pilot just ain't gonna do what s/he's supposed to do. At that point, I will pull up over and into the other plane, since pulling into a plane with which I am currently on a collision course means I will go behind it, and by doing this sort of barrel roll maneuver, it is almost impossible for any maneuver the other plane makes to result in a new collision course. This will also keep the other aircraft in my field of view whether I'm flying a high-wing or low-wing aircraft.

You're seriously suggesting that I should avoid maneuvering in a collision situation until the only way out is an aerobatic maneuver I've never practiced and have no idea how to perform???!! (I don't even fully understand what you mean by "pull up over and into the other plane", beyond your later description of a barrel roll.)

With all due respect, sir, that's absolutely ******* insane.

If not, then what do you suggest for those of us who aren't ex-fighter pilots? No, the answer is not "go practice barrel rolls", not the least of the reasons against being that my airplane has a POH limitation of "no aerobatic maneuvers".

 

[jesse]

Not offhand, but the fact is that the law reads as I described. Violate it at your own risk. How much risk there is if you successfully avoid the collision, I can't say.

Point me to the law? I think I'll successfully avoid a collision every single day over waiting until the last moment to do some crazy maneuver to prevent collision.

pull up over and into the other plane

If the plane were on your left traveling horizontally in front of you--essentially you'd bank hard to the left (behind their tail) and pull at the same time. This would give you lateral and vertical seperation in a direction that the other aircraft couldn't possibly maneuver into. That said, you're a hell of a lot better off to avoid a conflict earlier than later.

 

[CJones]

Spike mentions that numerous lawsuits have determined that Pilotage rules are applicable within 3-5 miles for watercraft. For aircraft, I'm lucky if I can even see the other a/c at 3-5 miles. Has there been any sort of legal precedent set for aircraft in this area?

If not, I'll take Jesse's actions and maneuver before an 'abrupt' maneuver is required. If action is taken early enough, even if the other a/c reacts incorrectly, there is still time to counteract their maneuver. For me, a barrel roll in a loaded 182 would be a last-ditch effort, not an only means of collision avoidance.

 

[poadeleted20]

To Jay and Jesse: Do what you want, but the law as described above is clear, and if you maneuver when you are the privileged aircraft, it's at your own legal risk. Fly safe, Ron

PS: Remember -- I'm answering a legal question with a legal answer. However, at the end of the day, it is better to be convicted by twelve than carried by six. Choose wisely.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm wondering if any of y'all has ever had that happen to them, and also if you have ever had to do evasive maneuvering to avoid a mid-air?

John

Several times...the two most recent involved VFR aircraft flying at cloud base while I was descending on an instrument approach, both in Class E airspace.

Fly safe, and keep your eyes outside!

David

 

[sdflyer]

I would turn inside the sucker and shot him down

Seriously being a socal pilot I would neither wait nor assume that other pilot sees me. I have way too many bad experiences meeting blind pilots.
So when I see someone is converging with my flight path by default I'm assuming that he is blind :wink2:

 

[John Baker]

FAR 191.123 Pretty much says the PIC can deviate from any rules in an emergency situation.

FAR 6-1-1 Section a: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft. In an emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule in 14 CFR Part 91 etc. etc. To the extent required to meet that emergency.

You are covered in several sections of the FARs.

John

 

[poadeleted20]

FAR 191.123 Pretty much says the PIC can deviate from any rules in an emergency situation.

There is no such rule as 191.123. If you're talking about 91.123, that rule says that absent an emergency, you must do what the controller tells you and does not say anything about deviating from any other rule in the book. Not exactly applicable to two converging VFR aircraft other than in B-space.

FAR 6-1-1 Section a: The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft. In an emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule in 14 CFR Part 91 etc. etc. To the extent required to meet that emergency.

There is no such rule as "FAR 6-1-1." What you have written is a misquotation of 14 CFR 91.3, which is reproduced in its entirety below:

Section 91.3: Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

You are covered in several sections of the FARs.

Not until it becomes an "emergency" requiring immediate action (consider both words -- "requiring" and "immediate"), and then only by one sectiond (unless you're operating IFR or in B-space), and then only insofar as you have to deviate from a Part 91 rule to deal with the emergency, not to deviate from any FAR in the book.

 

[John Baker]

Cap'n Ron. You are right of course. I think it is called the AIM. I found it on page 757 of the 06 FAR/AIM. I seem to recall something very similar to 6-1-1 in the FAR as well.

At best, we are splitting hairs. The final authority on an aircraft is in fact, the PIC. In any emergency, regardless if he is under ATC or not, should the emergency require immediate action, it is the PICs call, not a controller, not any obscure rules, in any publication.

Granted, he may be required to explain his actions in writing, but it is still his decision and his decision alone.

When the safety of the aircraft is involved, any rule can be deviated from. That baseball player a few years back that crashed into a building rather than penetrate Bravo was overly caught up in rules. The safety of the aircraft comes first, above all else.

Of course any government regulations have conflicting rules somewhere, so nothing you find in FAR/AIM is going to protect you from litigation. Nevertheless, your the Cap'n, and things gotta get done your way while your ship is in motion.

John

 

[poadeleted20]

John is entirely correct about the need to do whatever it takes to avoid hitting something harder than a cloud. However, until it reaches the point of being an emergency requiring immediate action, remember that the right-of-way rules are constructed with the understanding that the aircraft with right-of-way will not maneuver lest that maneuver negate the effect of any avoiding action the other aircraft might take. A "sea story" about that...

We take you now to the Western Pacific Ocean, one morning in the summer of 1975. I was the JOOW on the bridge of the USS Kitty Hawk, steaming north a few hundred miles off the Phillipenes. The OOD was the ship's Assistant Navigator, a senior Lieutenant. The Captain was sitting quietly in his big chair on the port side of the bridge, sipping his coffee and reading message traffic. I spot a radar contact bearing about 045 -- big honkin' blip, too. I inform the OOD and start a plot, and find that it is "constant bearing, decreasing range" -- a collision course. We get out our binoculars, and out on the horizon is a big tanker steaming west, maybe 10 miles out (yes, you can see something well over the normal horizon if you're standing 120 feet above the ocean surface and what you're watching sticks up, too). The OOD watches for a couple of minutes, and once we're sure of the CBDR condition, he informs the Captain (who grunts without looking up) and makes a heading change to starboard, to go behind the tanker (which, being on the right, has right-of-way).

About five minutes later, I notice the tanker's track has changed -- he's turned left about 20 degrees. His new heading has placed him back on a collision course with us. I so inform the OOD, who mutters something nasty, and orders the helmsman to turn back left to our original course, which will now take us well in front of the tanker. The OOD so informs the Captain, who looks at his bridge crew, frowns, and returns to the message board.

Guess what happens five minutes later -- the tanker turns back to the right, to his original course, and back on a collision course with us. I tell the OOD, and the Captain, overhearing my report, turns to the OOD, and in a loud and commanding voice asks, "Mr. OOD! What do you think the OOD of that ship is thinking?" The helmsman and lee helmsman are looking to crawl down behind their station so they can't be seen, the quartermaster of the watch starts making like he's trying to find a chart in the back somewhere, the bos'n is backed against the wall, and even the Captain's Marine orderly looks uncomfortable. Me? I just stand there looking at the Captain with the old deer-in-the-headlights look, and he's not even talking to me.

The OOD calmly says, "I have no idea, sir. But I intend maneuver as necessary to avoid him." "Maybe you should just stay on heading and let him avoid you," says the Captain. "Are you relieving me of the deck, sir? If not, I will proceed as I said." The Captain glares, says nothing, and goes back to his coffee. We make another turn (a big one this time), and the tanker chugs on out of sight. I ask the OOD for a head break, and go in there and drain big time and then just shake for a few minutes before returning to the bridge.

BTW, if your FAR/AIM book says 2006 on it, it's time for a new one. I'm picking up my 2009 edition this week.

 

[John Baker]

Ron, great story, thanks. Yes, my FAR/AIM has 06 on the cover. It is also very dog eared, a few tears. I think that brown ring on the cover is from a coffee cup.

I'll get a new one.

As an ad on: My original story that started this thread, my flight instructor did let me maintain my heading until awfully close to the last few seconds. When it became apparent that I was off in some happy place, and the other pilot had no intentions of altering his course, it was only then that my instructor took over the controls. Like the Capitan on your ship, he was not at all pleased.

John

 

[poadeleted20]

Like the Capitan on your ship, he was not at all pleased.

To this day, I have no idea if El Capitan was displeased or just seeing if he could rattle the OOD's cage (which he couldn't).

 

[John Baker]

This whole issue is addressed in this months AOPA magazine on page 44 "A pilots emergency authority."

John

 

[wabower]

BTW, if your FAR/AIM book says 2006 on it, it's time for a new one. I'm picking up my 2009 edition this week.

So are some others, but you're the only one who's going to the signing party at Barnes & Noble.

 

[webdaddy]

I would turn inside the sucker and shot him down

Seriously being a socal pilot I would neither wait nor assume that other pilot sees me. I have way too many bad experiences meeting blind pilots.
So when I see someone is converging with my flight path by default I'm assuming that he is blind :wink2:

That's right and right of way is a gift given to you by another pilot. Assume that they are not in a giving mood and do what you need to do to remove yourself from a potential disasterous situation before running out of time or options.

Again right of way is only a concept until somebody gives it to you...

 

[poadeleted20]

This whole issue is addressed in this months AOPA magazine on page 44 "A pilots emergency authority."

However, I do not see anything in 91.113 which "expressly recognizes the pilot's emergency authority to deviate from the right-of-way rules." All I see is paragraph (c) "In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic." I don't read that as saying quite the same thing Yodice did, although I do agree that 91.3(b) gives the pilot the authority to deviate from 91.113 when necessary to avoid a collision.

 

[ted gilbertson]

I don't trust any of the right of way stuff. If i see a plane that is heading my way I get my self out of the way. On my first solo I had a c-130 approaching me and by the rules I had the right of way. Do you think he cared, next thing I new I was diving under a away in the little 150 from a very large plane. Don't every want to see the bottom of a C-130 again, now days I get out of the way and try to get the other pilot on the radio to see what his intentions are. It is much better to stay alive

 

[Cap'n Jack]

John is entirely correct about the need to do whatever it takes to avoid hitting something harder than a cloud. However, until it reaches the point of being an emergency requiring immediate action, remember that the right-of-way rules are constructed with the understanding that the aircraft with right-of-way will not maneuver lest that maneuver negate the effect of any avoiding action the other aircraft might take. A "sea story" about that...

We take you now to the Western Pacific Ocean, one morning in the summer of 1975. I was the JOOW on the bridge of the USS Kitty Hawk, steaming north a few hundred miles off the Phillipenes. The OOD was the ship's Assistant Navigator, a senior Lieutenant. The Captain was sitting quietly in his big chair on the port side of the bridge, sipping his coffee and reading message traffic. I spot a radar contact bearing about 045 -- big honkin' blip, too. I inform the OOD and start a plot, and find that it is "constant bearing, decreasing range" -- a collision course. We get out our binoculars, and out on the horizon is a big tanker steaming west, maybe 10 miles out (yes, you can see something well over the normal horizon if you're standing 120 feet above the ocean surface and what you're watching sticks up, too). The OOD watches for a couple of minutes, and once we're sure of the CBDR condition, he informs the Captain (who grunts without looking up) and makes a heading change to starboard, to go behind the tanker (which, being on the right, has right-of-way).

About five minutes later, I notice the tanker's track has changed -- he's turned left about 20 degrees. His new heading has placed him back on a collision course with us. I so inform the OOD, who mutters something nasty, and orders the helmsman to turn back left to our original course, which will now take us well in front of the tanker. The OOD so informs the Captain, who looks at his bridge crew, frowns, and returns to the message board.

Guess what happens five minutes later -- the tanker turns back to the right, to his original course, and back on a collision course with us. I tell the OOD, and the Captain, overhearing my report, turns to the OOD, and in a loud and commanding voice asks, "Mr. OOD! What do you think the OOD of that ship is thinking?" The helmsman and lee helmsman are looking to crawl down behind their station so they can't be seen, the quartermaster of the watch starts making like he's trying to find a chart in the back somewhere, the bos'n is backed against the wall, and even the Captain's Marine orderly looks uncomfortable. Me? I just stand there looking at the Captain with the old deer-in-the-headlights look, and he's not even talking to me.

The OOD calmly says, "I have no idea, sir. But I intend maneuver as necessary to avoid him." "Maybe you should just stay on heading and let him avoid you," says the Captain. "Are you relieving me of the deck, sir? If not, I will proceed as I said." The Captain glares, says nothing, and goes back to his coffee. We make another turn (a big one this time), and the tanker chugs on out of sight. I ask the OOD for a head break, and go in there and drain big time and then just shake for a few minutes before returning to the bridge.

Somds a little like what I heard happened with the Andrea Doria-Stockhelm collision. Henning probably knows a bit more about it, but the ships turned into each other (note- it sounds like the Kitty Hawk crew did what they were supposed to- no critique implied).

Back to aviation- most of the few times I had the situation either we saw each other and communicated our intentions. This was near an airport & people actually were on the CTAF. If I see the person early enough a slight turn to starboard makes it a non-issue (and not a situation)

 

[gismo]

Something I learned long ago (piloting boats not airplanes) is that if you make a course change to avoid a potential collision (whether or not you have the "right of way") it helps immensely if you make a large and obvious change and make it early. I do believe it's as true in the air as on the water that the pilot who has the right of way is obligated to maintain course/speed but only to the extent that any change doesn't increase the risk of collision. If you do turn or change altitude you should alter your path in a way that both clearly communicates your intention and makes a collision almost impossible. If you turn to the left so as to pass behind an airplane approaching from the left you can make that turn sharp enough that the other airplane would need a 180 just to cross your path and a rather abrupt one to actually occupy the same place as you at the same instant. IMO what you should never ever do is to turn away and then turn back just because the other plane also began an avoidance maneuver. If your first correction get's countered by the other pilot, turn even further away and/or change altitude in a way that allows you to continue to spot the other airplane. Also if you believe that another airplane that should be giving you the ROW hasn't seen you yet, you should attempt to make yourself more visible. If they are approaching from the side rocking your wings 30 degrees each way will present both motion (our eyes perceive motion far more readily than steady targets) and a larger target. If they are in front of you put the landing lights on or flash them on and off.

 

[Henning]

You're seriously suggesting that I should avoid maneuvering in a collision situation until the only way out is an aerobatic maneuver I've never practiced and have no idea how to perform???!! (I don't even fully understand what you mean by "pull up over and into the other plane", beyond your later description of a barrel roll.)

With all due respect, sir, that's absolutely ******* insane.

If not, then what do you suggest for those of us who aren't ex-fighter pilots? No, the answer is not "go practice barrel rolls", not the least of the reasons against being that my airplane has a POH limitation of "no aerobatic maneuvers".

Regardless your take on the situation, it is the way it works. Both craft are burdened, the craft with ROW is burdened to maintain course and speed while the give way is burdened not to hit them.

This is the burden from the point where a risk of collission is determined to exist all the way to the point of In Extremes which is the point where it is determined that the maneuvering of one party alone will not be sufficient to avoid the collision.

 

[jmaynard]

Regardless your take on the situation, it is the way it works. Both craft are burdened, the craft with ROW is burdened to maintain course and speed while the give way is burdened not to hit them.

This is the burden from the point where a risk of collission is determined to exist all the way to the point of In Extremes which is the point where it is determined that the maneuvering of one party alone will not be sufficient to avoid the collision.

Sounds like a good way to be dead right.

No way. I'll protect my life and my aircraft first. If that results in my ticket going away, them's the breaks.

 

[Henning]

Sounds like a good way to be dead right.

No way. I'll protect my life and my aircraft first. If that results in my ticket going away, them's the breaks.

It's not about your ticket, it's about doing what the other person expects you to do to prevent the collission. So, given your aircraft, and you have another aircraft at your altitude coming at you from you 10 o'clock, continuous bearing, diminishing range, what are you going to do, and at what point would you decide to do it? The other plane is a low wing Mooney....

 

[alaskaflyer]

Sounds like a good way to be dead right.

No way. I'll protect my life and my aircraft first. If that results in my ticket going away, them's the breaks.

So, how are you (the stand-on aircraft) going to maneuver to avoid a potential collision in a way that ensures the give-way aircraft doesn't match you?

Some of you are making way too much out of Ron's post. The CFI in the OP's story had it exactly right, and some of you would be wise to emulate that example the next time it happens to you. IMO.

 

[ActiveAir]

Interesting thread. I had an experience at a class D, where I was going to be entering a right base as instructed. Tower asked me to turn onto the right base, a couple miles ahead of normal pattern (I was west bound and north for a 26 rnwy). I complied. As I turn final, I'm head-on with a departing plane who cut an inward angle on his left downwind departure. He is not moving off his line. At this point, I assume he's not looking out of his window. I dive as it appears he's climbing. Tower apologizes afterward. I could hear that the tower was busy the whole time. I reply "no problem", as I had remained calm in my reaction, and was now short final. I probably should have had a conversation w/tower afterward, voicing my displeasure with the close call created by them. Departing knucklehead both cut his downwind on an inward line, and apparently wasn't watching. Probably a student, as there are many around that field.

I own boats and have ingrained from driving them, to keep my head on a swivel, no matter where I'm at or who's supposed to be doing whatever.

 

[jmaynard]

It's not about your ticket, it's about doing what the other person expects you to do to prevent the collission. So, given your aircraft, and you have another aircraft at your altitude coming at you from you 10 o'clock, continuous bearing, diminishing range, what are you going to do, and at what point would you decide to do it? The other plane is a low wing Mooney....

The last time it happened to me, I was descending through 5000 when ATC told me, "5ZC, traffic 10 o'clock, 4 miles, type unknown, altitude indicates 5000."
I acknowledged, but couldn't spot the traffic. A moment later: "5ZC, traffic now 10 o'clock, 2 miles, altitude indicates 4700."
"5ZC is expediting descent." I backed off the throttle and pushed the nose over. The Zodiac dropped fast, and the other guy passed above me by a couple of hundred feet.

I don't care about the legal niceties. I'm going to save my life first, and worry about those later. Depending on the other guy to do the right thing is a good way to get killed, on the ground or in the air.